Mitchell Stancombe jailed for posting about riots in Southampton on Facebook

A HAMPSHIRE man has been jailed for three years after being found guilty of inciting violence during the height of last summer’s riots.

Mitchell Stancombe stood motionless in the dock at Southampton Crown Court as the jury foreman delivered the unanimous guilty verdict
after two hours of deliberations.

They had heard how Stancombe had posted a number of comments on the social networking site Facebook that included “When are we going to start the riots in Southampton then?” in August last year.

The 21-year-old mechanic of Kingsley Gardens, Totton, denied the charge claiming he had meant the comments as a joke and that they had been “blown out of all
proportion”.

Following the verdict Stancombe’s defence counsel Mark Ashley said: “The consequences of these few moments of stupidity are almost certainly going to affect the rest of his life.”

In handing down the sentence Judge Gary Burrell QC said he had no option but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to serve as a deterrent. He told Stancombe that it was “merciful” that no one
had actually acted upon the comments he had posted.

Stancombe is accused made the comment on August 9 last year.

When told to shut up by a friend, the 21-year-old replied: ''LOL (laugh out loud) - do a few coppers in.'' Southampton Crown Court heard how he then made another post encouraging an attack on
Muslim people. Another friend, replying to Stancombe's posts, warned him that Facebook was being "watched", the court was told.

Christopher Stopa, prosecuting, told jurors that on the day the posts were made, there was widespread rioting across England in Birmingham, Manchester, Derby, London and Liverpool. Stancombe, from
Totton, denies encouraging and assisting people to commit violent disorder under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

Mr Stopa told the jury the posts should be seen in the context of the rioting across England. ''If you look at these three posts together, the only possible explanation is that he was trying to
encourage other people to get involved in violent disorder,'' the barrister said.

Hampshire police had been monitoring sites like Facebook during the riots in an operation costing £400,000. When Stancombe was arrested and questioned at Lyndhurst police station, he told officers
the posts were an ill-advised joke and he did not intend to encourage anyone to riot.

While being cross-examined in court yesterday, he told the court: "I just think it has been blown out of all proportion. "It was just stupid and immature."

SFCLoyal12 wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.

You think he should have got more?

Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.

[quote][p][bold]Higginz[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.[/p][/quote]You think he should have got more?[/p][/quote]Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.SFCLoyal12

Bit heavy for a prank I think.
He was a bit naughty yes, but 3 years.
A suspended sentence or a community service would have been right.
One day punishments will fit the crimes and the judges will become consistent.
Needs to appeal.

Bit heavy for a prank I think.
He was a bit naughty yes, but 3 years.
A suspended sentence or a community service would have been right.
One day punishments will fit the crimes and the judges will become consistent.
Needs to appeal.costa gaz

I think the comments were made as jokes and in humour but he has to realise (and still doesn't seem to?) that at the time with the riots going on that people might take the comments seriously plus they demonstrate approval of the riots and of attacking the police. I do agree that a stand needs to be made that this behaviour is not acceptable but 3 years seems harsh to me. What a shame though that he still does not think he did anything wrong I suspect his lack of remorse contributed to his long sentence.

I think the comments were made as jokes and in humour but he has to realise (and still doesn't seem to?) that at the time with the riots going on that people might take the comments seriously plus they demonstrate approval of the riots and of attacking the police. I do agree that a stand needs to be made that this behaviour is not acceptable but 3 years seems harsh to me. What a shame though that he still does not think he did anything wrong I suspect his lack of remorse contributed to his long sentence.BenjiWinsor

SFCLoyal12 wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.

You think he should have got more?

Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.

3 yrs was right. It's the other sentences which need to be raised.

[quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Higginz[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.[/p][/quote]You think he should have got more?[/p][/quote]Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.[/p][/quote]3 yrs was right. It's the other sentences which need to be raised.SotonLad

SFCLoyal12 wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.

You think he should have got more?

Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.

3 yrs was right. It's the other sentences which need to be raised.

3 years was right? Community service should of been handed out where he had to work for the victims of the riots.

[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Higginz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.[/p][/quote]You think he should have got more?[/p][/quote]Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.[/p][/quote]3 yrs was right. It's the other sentences which need to be raised.[/p][/quote]3 years was right? Community service should of been handed out where he had to work for the victims of the riots.SFCLoyal12

3 years as a deterrent? It makes people respect the justice system and the law less and less when they see ridiculous things like this!

Yes he did wrong, but it's the sort of thing that would get you a detention in school or something not 3 years in a prison. Does he have a long criminal record? Is he a known gangster or something? Yet another judge out of touch with reality.

I did not and do not condone the behaviour of the rioters and can remember it happening years ago as well, when FaceBook wasn't about, and they didn't need any help in getting involved then.

It's a joke that this ever went to court in the first place, what a waste of resources and money.

3 years as a deterrent? It makes people respect the justice system and the law less and less when they see ridiculous things like this!
Yes he did wrong, but it's the sort of thing that would get you a detention in school or something not 3 years in a prison. Does he have a long criminal record? Is he a known gangster or something? Yet another judge out of touch with reality.
I did not and do not condone the behaviour of the rioters and can remember it happening years ago as well, when FaceBook wasn't about, and they didn't need any help in getting involved then.
It's a joke that this ever went to court in the first place, what a waste of resources and money.Chunshine

SFCLoyal12 wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.

You think he should have got more?

Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.

Three years for inciting violence does sound steep in comparison to eighteen months for sexual assault, but then I'd argue that the latter should be increased to far more.

Three years certainly sends out a message to people that incitement to violence and criminal damage won't be tolerated. IF his comments had sparked events in Southampton similar to those seen in London, there would have been a lot of people and businesses negatively affected. Unfortunately, with the power of social networking, stupid people like this, making stupid comments at a volatile time, can cause a lot of unrest.

And that's what I believe is happening here. They're making an example out of him.

[quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Higginz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SFCLoyal12[/bold] wrote: That is a complete joke and proves how pathetic our justice system is.[/p][/quote]You think he should have got more?[/p][/quote]Not at all, shouldnt of been jailed for a silly comment on facebook when others are getting 18 months for sexual assault and other much serious cases.[/p][/quote]Three years for inciting violence does sound steep in comparison to eighteen months for sexual assault, but then I'd argue that the latter should be increased to far more.
Three years certainly sends out a message to people that incitement to violence and criminal damage won't be tolerated. IF his comments had sparked events in Southampton similar to those seen in London, there would have been a lot of people and businesses negatively affected. Unfortunately, with the power of social networking, stupid people like this, making stupid comments at a volatile time, can cause a lot of unrest.
And that's what I believe is happening here. They're making an example out of him.Higginz

This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)The Salv

costa gaz wrote:
The lout that threw the fire extinguisher off the 7 storey building during the student protests which was aimed at police down below got less time behind bars ????????

Judge thinks it's so serious he gives him 3 years in prison

FaceBook thinks it's so serious they didn't even suspend his account!

Why were his tools of incitement not removed? That just goes to show what a farce this really is!

[quote][p][bold]costa gaz[/bold] wrote:
The lout that threw the fire extinguisher off the 7 storey building during the student protests which was aimed at police down below got less time behind bars ????????[/p][/quote]Judge thinks it's so serious he gives him 3 years in prison
FaceBook thinks it's so serious they didn't even suspend his account!
Why were his tools of incitement not removed? That just goes to show what a farce this really is!Chunshine

what a complete joke!!!!! Yesterday a paedophile got spared a prison sentence, while some1 that for a laugh as you do on fb wrote a stupid comment has 2 spend atleast a yr and a half in prison!!!!!! Well seems judges seem to favour people that r a danger to our kids! What does that sya about them???????

what a complete joke!!!!! Yesterday a paedophile got spared a prison sentence, while some1 that for a laugh as you do on fb wrote a stupid comment has 2 spend atleast a yr and a half in prison!!!!!! Well seems judges seem to favour people that r a danger to our kids! What does that sya about them???????madge731933

This seems to be one of those rare cases where some people believe the sentence was too harsh. I wasn't in court so I can't be sure whether they are right or wrong but it certainly does seem out of line with current sentencing practice.

This seems to be one of those rare cases where some people believe the sentence was too harsh. I wasn't in court so I can't be sure whether they are right or wrong but it certainly does seem out of line with current sentencing practice.cliffwalker

St Retford wrote:
Even talking about riots is an inprisonable offence. You lot should be VERY worried.

Us lot?! Are you taking over as Chief of Thought Police soon then?

[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote:
Even talking about riots is an inprisonable offence. You lot should be VERY worried.[/p][/quote]Us lot?! Are you taking over as Chief of Thought Police soon then?Shoong

What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.

What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.bigfella777

bigfella777 wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.

Doh! Posting on a social netwotk site by very definition isn't private.

If you yourself are using Facebook, you might want to go back and check out the T's and C's.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.[/p][/quote]Doh! Posting on a social netwotk site by very definition isn't private.
If you yourself are using Facebook, you might want to go back and check out the T's and C's.Shoong

3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.

3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.ToastyTea

St Retford wrote: Even talking about riots is an inprisonable offence. You lot should be VERY worried.

Us lot?! Are you taking over as Chief of Thought Police soon then?

Well I'm not the one talking about riots, am I? Seriously, the whole issue is a hot potato made of solid sh1te.

For the record, I think the government is wonderful, the judicial system is perfect and anyone remotely involved in the riots deserves prison for a very long time. God save the queen etc.

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: Even talking about riots is an inprisonable offence. You lot should be VERY worried.[/p][/quote]Us lot?! Are you taking over as Chief of Thought Police soon then?[/p][/quote]Well I'm not the one talking about riots, am I? Seriously, the whole issue is a hot potato made of solid sh1te.
For the record, I think the government is wonderful, the judicial system is perfect and anyone remotely involved in the riots deserves prison for a very long time. God save the queen etc.St Retford

A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????

Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous!

3 reports from the Echo pages in the last week:
A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????
Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous!Chunshine

Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.OSPREYSAINT

A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????

Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous!

Sorry, 4 reports

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
3 reports from the Echo pages in the last week:
A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????
Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous![/p][/quote]Sorry, 4 reportsChunshine

Classic example of consequences for "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre". People have to be held accountable. Of course if you go on tv and tell people to keep cans of petrol in their homes and someone gets seriously burned or dies.......well, then a nice apology/non-apology will suffice.

Classic example of consequences for "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre". People have to be held accountable. Of course if you go on tv and tell people to keep cans of petrol in their homes and someone gets seriously burned or dies.......well, then a nice apology/non-apology will suffice.YankeeDoodle

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

I agree, don't do the crime and all that, but come on, a sensible sentence that fits the crime is also needed.

How can a guy who, totally unprovoked, punches somebody in the street, breaking that persons eye, only get 14 months?

How can a sicko who downloads child **** walk away without a custodial sentence?

This is more of a "Don't do a certain type of crime....."

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.[/p][/quote]I agree, don't do the crime and all that, but come on, a sensible sentence that fits the crime is also needed.
How can a guy who, totally unprovoked, punches somebody in the street, breaking that persons eye, only get 14 months?
How can a sicko who downloads child **** walk away without a custodial sentence?
This is more of a "Don't do a certain type of crime....."Chunshine

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Good! It's not acceptable to post trying to incite a riot. He crossed the line suggesting to 'do some coppers in' and to attack muslims. Got what he deserved.

Really?

To incite a riot you need to be communicating with like minded people. His friends were telling him to shut up. He's hardly a gangster with contacts is he?

He just got carried away with a bit of stupidity, not anything that deserves 3 years. He does deserve a punishment for what he did but something a bit more fitting for the crime I think.

[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote:
Good! It's not acceptable to post trying to incite a riot. He crossed the line suggesting to 'do some coppers in' and to attack muslims. Got what he deserved.[/p][/quote]Really?
To incite a riot you need to be communicating with like minded people. His friends were telling him to shut up. He's hardly a gangster with contacts is he?
He just got carried away with a bit of stupidity, not anything that deserves 3 years. He does deserve a punishment for what he did but something a bit more fitting for the crime I think.Chunshine

bigfella777 wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday. They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal. And it just makes you realise how private your information is.

Or maybe he'll use the time to good use and get some qualifications and get something out of a bad situation.
Information is still private, just not when you put it on social networking sites where anyone can read them.
Does seem harsh though. You can burn poppy's in front of our brave troops and get a £50 fine, surely that is also enticing violence?

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday. They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal. And it just makes you realise how private your information is.[/p][/quote]Or maybe he'll use the time to good use and get some qualifications and get something out of a bad situation.
Information is still private, just not when you put it on social networking sites where anyone can read them.
Does seem harsh though. You can burn poppy's in front of our brave troops and get a £50 fine, surely that is also enticing violence?rich the stitch

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.Georgem

bigfella777 wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.

Yeh, who'd have thought a post on a social network would be visible to anyone else.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
What are we living in now a dictatorship? Man walks free from court for child **** on Monday yet man gets 3 yrs for typing words on a computer on Thursday.
They are just making an example out of him to stop other people from doing it in the future,maybe by the time he gets out he will be a hardened criminal.
And it just makes you realise how private your information is.[/p][/quote]Yeh, who'd have thought a post on a social network would be visible to anyone else.Georgem

A joke sentence, of course what he did was wrong, but could he not have been told to put something back into society instead of spending the next 18 months locked up 23 hours a day, then when he comes out of prison he will have to declare his criminal record so will find it hard to get work,

A joke sentence, of course what he did was wrong, but could he not have been told to put something back into society instead of spending the next 18 months locked up 23 hours a day, then when he comes out of prison he will have to declare his criminal record so will find it hard to get work,THEKILLER

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

Deterrent from what? It was a post on Facebook that wasn't even intended to incite a riot. We need harsh prison sentences to deter us from making innocuous comments? The entire dailyecho.co.uk readership is in big trouble now.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.[/p][/quote]Deterrent from what? It was a post on Facebook that wasn't even intended to incite a riot. We need harsh prison sentences to deter us from making innocuous comments? The entire dailyecho.co.uk readership is in big trouble now.Georgem

Many of the sentences imposed for minor thefts during the riots have been high by comparison with similar offences at other times. However, given good behaviour in jail he will be out in 18 months.

Many of the sentences imposed for minor thefts during the riots have been high by comparison with similar offences at other times. However, given good behaviour in jail he will be out in 18 months.News Fanatic

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.OSPREYSAINT

I think there are a lot of people out there who do not understand the internet and are even frightened of it, also there are a lot of people that have got to realise the honeymoon is over and the days of saying what you like and making comments on Facebook and Twitter can get you into a lot of trouble. Yes i think 3 years is a bit harsh although for some obscure reason he will only do 18 months (i think you should do the sentence you are given) but this is yet another example of the stupidity of our justice system where Judges think they run the country amongst other things, i don't know if he has any history with the law but a bit of contrition would have gone a long way in reducing the sentence.

I think there are a lot of people out there who do not understand the internet and are even frightened of it, also there are a lot of people that have got to realise the honeymoon is over and the days of saying what you like and making comments on Facebook and Twitter can get you into a lot of trouble. Yes i think 3 years is a bit harsh although for some obscure reason he will only do 18 months (i think you should do the sentence you are given) but this is yet another example of the stupidity of our justice system where Judges think they run the country amongst other things, i don't know if he has any history with the law but a bit of contrition would have gone a long way in reducing the sentence.ohec

The main factor of why he was given such a harsh sentence is that the government is panic-stricken that any single member of the indigenous population could trigger civil unrest involving the ethnic masses now settled in this country causing catastrophic and irreversable damage to our communities.
Indirectly Mitchell is a victim of the governments past and present immigration policies which he may be personally aggrieved by , and want to take his frustration out on the nearest authority he could have contact with, the police as well as ethnic minorities.
There are probably many many more like him out there in suburbian Britain reading and contemplating through the media infested reports, needing the chance to vent their feelings.
Unless the authorities take immediate action to address all the inequalities that lurk at every turn in our lives many more of these cases will be affecting yet more reluctant victims like Mitchell.

The main factor of why he was given such a harsh sentence is that the government is panic-stricken that any single member of the indigenous population could trigger civil unrest involving the ethnic masses now settled in this country causing catastrophic and irreversable damage to our communities.
Indirectly Mitchell is a victim of the governments past and present immigration policies which he may be personally aggrieved by , and want to take his frustration out on the nearest authority he could have contact with, the police as well as ethnic minorities.
There are probably many many more like him out there in suburbian Britain reading and contemplating through the media infested reports, needing the chance to vent their feelings.
Unless the authorities take immediate action to address all the inequalities that lurk at every turn in our lives many more of these cases will be affecting yet more reluctant victims like Mitchell.Sovietobserver

costa gaz wrote:
Bit heavy for a prank I think.
He was a bit naughty yes, but 3 years.
A suspended sentence or a community service would have been right.
One day punishments will fit the crimes and the judges will become consistent.
Needs to appeal.

Agreed. His comments were stupid of course, but three years? When other people get much lesser sentences for far worse crimes?
It makes you wonder about the British judicial system. And worried about the direction the country is heading in.

[quote][p][bold]costa gaz[/bold] wrote:
Bit heavy for a prank I think.
He was a bit naughty yes, but 3 years.
A suspended sentence or a community service would have been right.
One day punishments will fit the crimes and the judges will become consistent.
Needs to appeal.[/p][/quote]Agreed. His comments were stupid of course, but three years? When other people get much lesser sentences for far worse crimes?
It makes you wonder about the British judicial system. And worried about the direction the country is heading in.Propercynic

If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!

I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?

If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!
I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?IronLady2010

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.Georgem

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

I agree, don't do the crime and all that, but come on, a sensible sentence that fits the crime is also needed.

How can a guy who, totally unprovoked, punches somebody in the street, breaking that persons eye, only get 14 months?

How can a sicko who downloads child **** walk away without a custodial sentence?

This is more of a &quot;Don't do a certain type of crime....."

I absolutely agree with you about the sentencing policies, at any other time, he would probably had a Conditional Discharge or similar, his punishment is a reflection on what happened at that time, you cannot have forgotten how serious the situation got at the time, some of it could have been prevented had it dawned on the perpetrators that they would have been caught and prosecuted, they may not have been aware then, but this case will have drawn their attention to it now, and maybe, prevent a repetition. I hope you don't have a reason to justify what happened, if you have, you have the right to express your opinions on here, sensibly expressed they won't be illegal, but don't expect much support.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.[/p][/quote]I agree, don't do the crime and all that, but come on, a sensible sentence that fits the crime is also needed.
How can a guy who, totally unprovoked, punches somebody in the street, breaking that persons eye, only get 14 months?
How can a sicko who downloads child **** walk away without a custodial sentence?
This is more of a "Don't do a certain type of crime....."[/p][/quote]I absolutely agree with you about the sentencing policies, at any other time, he would probably had a Conditional Discharge or similar, his punishment is a reflection on what happened at that time, you cannot have forgotten how serious the situation got at the time, some of it could have been prevented had it dawned on the perpetrators that they would have been caught and prosecuted, they may not have been aware then, but this case will have drawn their attention to it now, and maybe, prevent a repetition. I hope you don't have a reason to justify what happened, if you have, you have the right to express your opinions on here, sensibly expressed they won't be illegal, but don't expect much support.OSPREYSAINT

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?OSPREYSAINT

IronLady2010 wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!

I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?

That is the point I was trying to make, to you and me it was obviously a wind-up, it is the timing of the event that has created the difference, not so much what he said, but when he said it.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!
I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?[/p][/quote]That is the point I was trying to make, to you and me it was obviously a wind-up, it is the timing of the event that has created the difference, not so much what he said, but when he said it.OSPREYSAINT

There seems to be a lot of support for the guy on here, how about someone takes up the cudgels and set up a petition in his support use the web site http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/
====
I won't be supporting it but I know plenty will.

There seems to be a lot of support for the guy on here, how about someone takes up the cudgels and set up a petition in his support use the web site http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/
====
I won't be supporting it but I know plenty will.OSPREYSAINT

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.Georgem

IronLady2010 wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!

I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?

What's really scary is the fact that had he not done this at the time he did - when riots were taking place elsewhere - this would probably not be happening. Yep, he's not in prison for inciting a riot, he's not even in prison for making a poorly-judged joke. He's in prison because enough idiots in the public were baying for blood and the courts wanted to appease them.

You don't even have to have actually committed an offence any more. If there's enough public outcry at something, you run the risk of going to prison. That's really scary.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!
I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?[/p][/quote]What's really scary is the fact that had he not done this at the time he did - when riots were taking place elsewhere - this would probably not be happening. Yep, he's not in prison for inciting a riot, he's not even in prison for making a poorly-judged joke. He's in prison because enough idiots in the public were baying for blood and the courts wanted to appease them.
You don't even have to have actually committed an offence any more. If there's enough public outcry at something, you run the risk of going to prison. That's really scary.Georgem

Get yourself back out there and follow this story up properly, find out if this guy is really a threat to us all, if he has a shady criminal past or not. Find out if his lawyers are appealing.

Ask the local MPs and police chief what they really think about this.

Ask his family what they think and what they are going to do next.

I would really like to see more on this, especially find out what this guy had done, if anything, before all of this happened.

FAO Sian Davies, the original reporter on this story:
Get yourself back out there and follow this story up properly, find out if this guy is really a threat to us all, if he has a shady criminal past or not. Find out if his lawyers are appealing.
Ask the local MPs and police chief what they really think about this.
Ask his family what they think and what they are going to do next.
I would really like to see more on this, especially find out what this guy had done, if anything, before all of this happened.Chunshine

This lad comes from a well respected family and is not a criminal with a past. Ridiculous sentence ; woman steals £130k from her employers, gets 14 months inside and has to pay back just £9k. Joke comment on Facebook gets 3 years - were there actually any riots in Southampton or did I blink and miss them ?*?

This lad comes from a well respected family and is not a criminal with a past. Ridiculous sentence ; woman steals £130k from her employers, gets 14 months inside and has to pay back just £9k. Joke comment on Facebook gets 3 years - were there actually any riots in Southampton or did I blink and miss them ?*?rabbitlady

ToastyTea wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.

I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.

This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.

This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?

If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.

His defence in court was "that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.

IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.

[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.[/p][/quote]I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.
This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.
This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?
If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.
His defence in court was "that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.
IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.Over the Edge

very harsh sentence for something that never happened! you get less for man slaughter this country's justice system is a joke only the other day on the news a young girl is killed by a driver under the influence of drugs he only got 8 weeks how is that justice pathetic!!

very harsh sentence for something that never happened! you get less for man slaughter this country's justice system is a joke only the other day on the news a young girl is killed by a driver under the influence of drugs he only got 8 weeks how is that justice pathetic!!barnesgilly

ToastyTea wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.

I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.

This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.

This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?

If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.

His defence in court was &quot;that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.

IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.

That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.

The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison!

[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.[/p][/quote]I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.
This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.
This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?
If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.
His defence in court was "that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.
IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.[/p][/quote]That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.
The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison!Chunshine

rabbitlady wrote:
This lad comes from a well respected family and is not a criminal with a past. Ridiculous sentence ; woman steals £130k from her employers, gets 14 months inside and has to pay back just £9k. Joke comment on Facebook gets 3 years - were there actually any riots in Southampton or did I blink and miss them ?*?

Rabbitlady,The only related incident was when Judge Peter Henry, when sentencing Tobias Hotston-Clarke , for an attempted arson attack on Southampton Jobcentre in Bernard Street , stated he believed the defendant was influenced by the summer riots in London.

[quote][p][bold]rabbitlady[/bold] wrote:
This lad comes from a well respected family and is not a criminal with a past. Ridiculous sentence ; woman steals £130k from her employers, gets 14 months inside and has to pay back just £9k. Joke comment on Facebook gets 3 years - were there actually any riots in Southampton or did I blink and miss them ?*?[/p][/quote]Rabbitlady,The only related incident was when Judge Peter Henry, when sentencing Tobias Hotston-Clarke , for an attempted arson attack on Southampton Jobcentre in Bernard Street , stated he believed the defendant was influenced by the summer riots in London.Sovietobserver

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

So why not make purpatrators of serious crime an example of? http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9770287.
Child_porn_man_spare
d_jailed_term/ didnt even go to prison! Where's the deterrent in a non sentence like that!!!???

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.[/p][/quote]So why not make purpatrators of serious crime an example of? http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9770287.
Child_porn_man_spare
d_jailed_term/ didnt even go to prison! Where's the deterrent in a non sentence like that!!!???ottred

ToastyTea wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.

I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.

This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.

This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?

If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.

His defence in court was &quot;that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.

IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.

That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.

The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison!

He could have had his sentence reduced by a third by pleading guilty, like you said he did it, his defence was it a joke, pleading not guilty was stupid, he has cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing a trial, he chanced his arm and he lost.

The publicity generated by the sentence will IMO probably get his sentence reduced but not overturned (on appeal), I do not believe the judge would of sentenced outside the guidelines for such as offence therefore the appeal court can reduce a sentence not admonish it altogether, hopefully the time spent in jail waiting will teach he how funny he wasn't.

I really don't any sympathy for him.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.[/p][/quote]I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.
This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.
This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?
If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.
His defence in court was "that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.
IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.[/p][/quote]That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.
The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison![/p][/quote]He could have had his sentence reduced by a third by pleading guilty, like you said he did it, his defence was it a joke, pleading not guilty was stupid, he has cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing a trial, he chanced his arm and he lost.
The publicity generated by the sentence will IMO probably get his sentence reduced but not overturned (on appeal), I do not believe the judge would of sentenced outside the guidelines for such as offence therefore the appeal court can reduce a sentence not admonish it altogether, hopefully the time spent in jail waiting will teach he how funny he wasn't.
I really don't any sympathy for him.Over the Edge

I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?

I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?londonnew

ToastyTea wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.

I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.

This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.

This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?

If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.

His defence in court was &quot;that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.

IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.

That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.

The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison!

He could have had his sentence reduced by a third by pleading guilty, like you said he did it, his defence was it a joke, pleading not guilty was stupid, he has cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing a trial, he chanced his arm and he lost.

The publicity generated by the sentence will IMO probably get his sentence reduced but not overturned (on appeal), I do not believe the judge would of sentenced outside the guidelines for such as offence therefore the appeal court can reduce a sentence not admonish it altogether, hopefully the time spent in jail waiting will teach he how funny he wasn't.

I really don't any sympathy for him.

I do not have sympathy for him as such, it's more to do with the fact this ever came to court in the first place.

I don't think he chanced his arm at all, I think he genuinely thought it was just a joke and nothing would come of this.

No doubt his lawyers thought the same or they would have advised him to plead guilty, explaining the consequences if he didn't.

I don't think it is him who has cost the tax payers a fortune, more like the CPS and those in the government who believe that this sort of think will deter anybody.

It might make daft people like this one think twice about having a joke in the wrong place but for the true criminal that is bent on doing wrong it just makes them more determined than ever not to get caught and even more willing to cause serious harm to someone if they do run the risk of getting caught.

Make an example of real criminals not stupid people who should just know better, it leaves a bitter feeling towards the justice system when you see things like this compared against pedo's that don't even get a sentence at all.

[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote:
3 years ?? What a disgrace when thugs who assault people, rape and burgal are getting soft sentences like community orders. The guy made a stupid comment on twitter and did not in hell deserve to go to prison for it. Makes me feel sick that this guy has got such a harsh sentence.[/p][/quote]I don't believe I have seen a case of someone being found guilty of rape getting a community order, believe me Judge Gary Burrell QC would not let a convicted rapist walk.
This judge is good and fair with his sentencing, also once you are found guilty in front of this judge, the defendant doesn't get released for probation reports to be done, his stance is your going to jail, do not pass go or collect £200 you may as well start now.
This young man did wrong, I believe that a 21 year old man should responsibility for his actions, the warnings at the time were their for everyone to read and see on TV, the rioters were using BBM, FB and Twitter to call others to riot, the Government told people time and time again on the news that if you do this sort of thing you will be found out and punished, he got found out he got punished, I don't understand what the problem is?
If other idiots in Southampton had followed this idiots lead and caused a riot, would people be defending him and slamming the judge.
His defence in court was "that he was only joking", like the prosecution counsel reminded the young man, "jokes are supposed to be funny" I guess he's not laughing now.
IMO correct verdict, correct sentence, however one does think he will win an appeal.[/p][/quote]That very last sentence says it all. For all of your text on how he deserves 3 years for what he did you know he will win on appeal as it is a ridiculous sentence.
The verdict is not in question, he was guilty of a crime yes, but more so he was guilty of being stupid, which, from your last words you know, does not deserve 3 years in prison![/p][/quote]He could have had his sentence reduced by a third by pleading guilty, like you said he did it, his defence was it a joke, pleading not guilty was stupid, he has cost the taxpayer a fortune by forcing a trial, he chanced his arm and he lost.
The publicity generated by the sentence will IMO probably get his sentence reduced but not overturned (on appeal), I do not believe the judge would of sentenced outside the guidelines for such as offence therefore the appeal court can reduce a sentence not admonish it altogether, hopefully the time spent in jail waiting will teach he how funny he wasn't.
I really don't any sympathy for him.[/p][/quote]I do not have sympathy for him as such, it's more to do with the fact this ever came to court in the first place.
I don't think he chanced his arm at all, I think he genuinely thought it was just a joke and nothing would come of this.
No doubt his lawyers thought the same or they would have advised him to plead guilty, explaining the consequences if he didn't.
I don't think it is him who has cost the tax payers a fortune, more like the CPS and those in the government who believe that this sort of think will deter anybody.
It might make daft people like this one think twice about having a joke in the wrong place but for the true criminal that is bent on doing wrong it just makes them more determined than ever not to get caught and even more willing to cause serious harm to someone if they do run the risk of getting caught.
Make an example of real criminals not stupid people who should just know better, it leaves a bitter feeling towards the justice system when you see things like this compared against pedo's that don't even get a sentence at all.Chunshine

I know this young man. He has never been in trouble before and is a good hardworking person with a job. Stupid - yes! A crimal - absolutely not! This sentence will ruin his life and is an absolute disgrace - I am ashamed to be British. As many of you have rightly pointed out, you get less for murder, rape or child abuse. We have our priorities all wrong.

I know this young man. He has never been in trouble before and is a good hardworking person with a job. Stupid - yes! A crimal - absolutely not! This sentence will ruin his life and is an absolute disgrace - I am ashamed to be British. As many of you have rightly pointed out, you get less for murder, rape or child abuse. We have our priorities all wrong.CaroleA

CaroleA wrote:
I know this young man. He has never been in trouble before and is a good hardworking person with a job. Stupid - yes! A crimal - absolutely not! This sentence will ruin his life and is an absolute disgrace - I am ashamed to be British. As many of you have rightly pointed out, you get less for murder, rape or child abuse. We have our priorities all wrong.

I don't even think he was stupid. Who would expect that some banter amongst friends would land you in prison? Good luck to him with his appeal.

[quote][p][bold]CaroleA[/bold] wrote:
I know this young man. He has never been in trouble before and is a good hardworking person with a job. Stupid - yes! A crimal - absolutely not! This sentence will ruin his life and is an absolute disgrace - I am ashamed to be British. As many of you have rightly pointed out, you get less for murder, rape or child abuse. We have our priorities all wrong.[/p][/quote]I don't even think he was stupid. Who would expect that some banter amongst friends would land you in prison? Good luck to him with his appeal.Georgem

Over the edge, why should he plead guilty to incitement if that was never his intention?

His initial posting sounds more like an open question. Had he have expanded and said something like 'right fellow friends lets meet up at 6pm and start our own riot' then I could understand your view.

Yes, maybe he was foolish, but he doesn't deserve 3 years.

Over the edge, why should he plead guilty to incitement if that was never his intention?
His initial posting sounds more like an open question. Had he have expanded and said something like 'right fellow friends lets meet up at 6pm and start our own riot' then I could understand your view.
Yes, maybe he was foolish, but he doesn't deserve 3 years.IronLady2010

sotonwinch09 wrote:
Good! It's not acceptable to post trying to incite a riot. He crossed the line suggesting to 'do some coppers in' and to attack muslims. Got what he deserved.

Really?

To incite a riot you need to be communicating with like minded people. His friends were telling him to shut up. He's hardly a gangster with contacts is he?

He just got carried away with a bit of stupidity, not anything that deserves 3 years. He does deserve a punishment for what he did but something a bit more fitting for the crime I think.

Totally agree with you!! if he'd 'set up' the page, and invited people to 'riot' that would have been one thing... as he said himself it was stupid and immature but 3 years ffs, 18 months with good behaviour is farcical... he should appeal!

Frankly, I've seen far worse things written on Facebook - yet nothing is done about that.... the world has gone bonkers! It's nearly as ironic as Cameron telling off Jimmy Carr for Tax Avoidance!

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote:
Good! It's not acceptable to post trying to incite a riot. He crossed the line suggesting to 'do some coppers in' and to attack muslims. Got what he deserved.[/p][/quote]Really?
To incite a riot you need to be communicating with like minded people. His friends were telling him to shut up. He's hardly a gangster with contacts is he?
He just got carried away with a bit of stupidity, not anything that deserves 3 years. He does deserve a punishment for what he did but something a bit more fitting for the crime I think.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you!! if he'd 'set up' the page, and invited people to 'riot' that would have been one thing... as he said himself it was stupid and immature but 3 years ffs, 18 months with good behaviour is farcical... he should appeal!
Frankly, I've seen far worse things written on Facebook - yet nothing is done about that.... the world has gone bonkers! It's nearly as ironic as Cameron telling off Jimmy Carr for Tax Avoidance!freemantlegirl2

IronLady2010 wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!

I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?

"'**** them. Hardly can do **** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those ***** as well.''

Not what I'd interpret as mickey taking, seems the jury thought so too.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!
I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?[/p][/quote]"'**** them. Hardly can do **** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those ***** as well.''
Not what I'd interpret as mickey taking, seems the jury thought so too.Tone

IronLady2010 wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!

I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?

&quot;'**** them. Hardly can do **** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those ***** as well.''

Not what I'd interpret as mickey taking, seems the jury thought so too.

It needs to be read in context with the rest of his posts to determine if this was yet again sarcasm.

As for the jury, he was as good as guilty before he even faced his peers! The Government has seen to that with all the public display of bull**** since the riots.

It's a shame the same Governments couldn't put as much effort into avoiding these situations in the first place instead of rallying around and puffing their chests out AFTER the fact

[quote][p][bold]Tone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
If you look carefully at his comments that were used on Facebook, it would appear to me that he was taking the mickey out of the rioters not inciting a riot!
I mean, 'LOL - do a few coppers in', this is pure sarcasm surely and not a threat?[/p][/quote]"'**** them. Hardly can do **** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those ***** as well.''
Not what I'd interpret as mickey taking, seems the jury thought so too.[/p][/quote]It needs to be read in context with the rest of his posts to determine if this was yet again sarcasm.
As for the jury, he was as good as guilty before he even faced his peers! The Government has seen to that with all the public display of bull**** since the riots.
It's a shame the same Governments couldn't put as much effort into avoiding these situations in the first place instead of rallying around and puffing their chests out AFTER the factChunshine

This should never have gone to court and the outcome shows how out of touch the judge and jury are.

So Stancombe made a few comments on Facebook. So what? Probably no different to a few comments I heard people saying in my office last summer.

The Police should have given Stancombe a warning and left it at that.

If there had been a riot in Southampton that was linked to Stancombe's comments, then it would have been a different matter entirely.

As it is, the Police have ruined someone's life and cost you and me, the taxpayer, a tidy sum at the same time.

Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance is probably nothing compared to the costs associated with this case!

A total farce and I hope this young man is released on appeal.

This should never have gone to court and the outcome shows how out of touch the judge and jury are.
So Stancombe made a few comments on Facebook. So what? Probably no different to a few comments I heard people saying in my office last summer.
The Police should have given Stancombe a warning and left it at that.
If there had been a riot in Southampton that was linked to Stancombe's comments, then it would have been a different matter entirely.
As it is, the Police have ruined someone's life and cost you and me, the taxpayer, a tidy sum at the same time.
Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance is probably nothing compared to the costs associated with this case!
A total farce and I hope this young man is released on appeal.eurogordi

Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences.

The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?

Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences.
The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?Chunshine

Chunshine wrote:
Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences. The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?

Rallying people - or just expressing an opinion?
.
We will end up like China, Burma and the Ukraine, the opposition party leaders will be jailed for speaking out and rallying support. It's a slippery slope and somebody needs to intervene before we start jailing Ed Miliband for rallying his voters against the labour party. Actually did anybody see the old women talking to Ed about machine gunning down all the Tories? Maybe we should arrest her and send her to jail also???

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences. The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?[/p][/quote]Rallying people - or just expressing an opinion?
.
We will end up like China, Burma and the Ukraine, the opposition party leaders will be jailed for speaking out and rallying support. It's a slippery slope and somebody needs to intervene before we start jailing Ed Miliband for rallying his voters against the labour party. Actually did anybody see the old women talking to Ed about machine gunning down all the Tories? Maybe we should arrest her and send her to jail also???The Salv

Chunshine wrote: Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences. The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?

Rallying people - or just expressing an opinion? . We will end up like China, Burma and the Ukraine, the opposition party leaders will be jailed for speaking out and rallying support. It's a slippery slope and somebody needs to intervene before we start jailing Ed Miliband for rallying his voters against the labour party. Actually did anybody see the old women talking to Ed about machine gunning down all the Tories? Maybe we should arrest her and send her to jail also???

*Conservative Party... before anybody points it out :-I

[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote: Actually, if you look on the Internet, Twitter, FaceBook etc you will find lots of people who are actively rallying people together to cause offences. The flashmob strikes on stores in cities all over the country are openly discussed and some of these people have been arrested for public disorder offences and and criminal damage. They are guilty for sure of encouraging others to do the very same thing. Have any of these people been sentenced to 3 years?[/p][/quote]Rallying people - or just expressing an opinion? . We will end up like China, Burma and the Ukraine, the opposition party leaders will be jailed for speaking out and rallying support. It's a slippery slope and somebody needs to intervene before we start jailing Ed Miliband for rallying his voters against the labour party. Actually did anybody see the old women talking to Ed about machine gunning down all the Tories? Maybe we should arrest her and send her to jail also???[/p][/quote]*Conservative Party... before anybody points it out :-IThe Salv

If you look at what our politicians do & get away with, this is ridiculous in it's entirety!

Like I say.....the guy acted the fool & I reckon the judge was having a bad day....The UK judicial system is a joke & nobody respects it anyways!

Britain has become a joke...period, end of story :(

Let's face it guy acted the fool...3 years is a bit harsh though!
If you look at what our politicians do & get away with, this is ridiculous in it's entirety!
Like I say.....the guy acted the fool & I reckon the judge was having a bad day....The UK judicial system is a joke & nobody respects it anyways!
Britain has become a joke...period, end of story :(SOULJACKER

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.

So why not make purpatrators of serious crime an example of? http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/9770287.

Child_porn_man_spare

d_jailed_term/ didnt even go to prison! Where's the deterrent in a non sentence like that!!!???

None, and that is my point, if you want to create a detterent, the punishment must fit the crime, which is clearly not happening here.

[quote][p][bold]ottred[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
Harsh, yes, but in these times there has to be a some attempt at a detterent. He should be blaming the other co-conspiritors for his misfortune, but still should have shown more maturity in his own behaviour. If you don't want to do the time don't go out and commit the crime.[/p][/quote]So why not make purpatrators of serious crime an example of? http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9770287.
Child_porn_man_spare
d_jailed_term/ didnt even go to prison! Where's the deterrent in a non sentence like that!!!???[/p][/quote]None, and that is my point, if you want to create a detterent, the punishment must fit the crime, which is clearly not happening here.OSPREYSAINT

A Bournemouth councillor made a public apology for controversial online comments about the English Defence League.

Conservative Cllr Sue Anderson read out the apology at Tuesday's full council meeting. The mum of four, who represents Moordown, had said "nobody else except the EDL stick up for the English". She also tweeted to an account jointly run by a woman of Asian descent: "If you don't like it here go back to where you came from."

She told the full council the tweets were made in haste during a late night conversation without understanding the EDL's policies. Cllr Anderson added that her tweet to the joint account "could have been offensive" and she made an unreserved apology. She concluded by saying she abhorred any sort of intolerance.

Cllr Anderson, who referred herself to the standards board after the controversy broke, has also been told to do equality and diversity training.

She's still got her job and her liberty, go figure!

A Bournemouth councillor made a public apology for controversial online comments about the English Defence League.
Conservative Cllr Sue Anderson read out the apology at Tuesday's full council meeting. The mum of four, who represents Moordown, had said "nobody else except the EDL stick up for the English". She also tweeted to an account jointly run by a woman of Asian descent: "If you don't like it here go back to where you came from."
She told the full council the tweets were made in haste during a late night conversation without understanding the EDL's policies. Cllr Anderson added that her tweet to the joint account "could have been offensive" and she made an unreserved apology. She concluded by saying she abhorred any sort of intolerance.
Cllr Anderson, who referred herself to the standards board after the controversy broke, has also been told to do equality and diversity training.
She's still got her job and her liberty, go figure!Chunshine

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.[/p][/quote]A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"OSPREYSAINT

Too many Liberal thinking people have given us a weak justice system - too many "do gooders" and too many people who try to justify any form of crime!
>
Organised Criminal Rioting via Social Media was a new phenomena and people had to be made aware of the consequences their criminal actions - under the circumstances the sentences are fair.
(The "do gooders" could expend their energies on canvasing for higher sentences in many other forms of criminal behaviour !)

Too many Liberal thinking people have given us a weak justice system - too many "do gooders" and too many people who try to justify any form of crime!
>
Organised Criminal Rioting via Social Media was a new phenomena and people had to be made aware of the consequences their criminal actions - under the circumstances the sentences are fair.
(The "do gooders" could expend their energies on canvasing for higher sentences in many other forms of criminal behaviour !)George4th

This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x

This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS xjazzi

Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!

Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........

Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
init

Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!
Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........
Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
initIronLady2010

jazzi wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x

Sounds to me like you're already on something!

[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you're already on something!George4th

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says &quot;For you, no charge!"

I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.[/p][/quote]A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"[/p][/quote]I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.Georgem

IronLady2010 wrote:
Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!

Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........

Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
init

Many people say things in real life they don't mean. Who hasn't, at some point, said something along the lines of "I could kill him"? But we all know that's not actually a threat of murder.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!
Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........
Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
init[/p][/quote]Many people say things in real life they don't mean. Who hasn't, at some point, said something along the lines of "I could kill him"? But we all know that's not actually a threat of murder.Georgem

IronLady2010 wrote:
Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!

Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........

Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
init

Many people say things in real life they don't mean. Who hasn't, at some point, said something along the lines of &quot;I could kill him"? But we all know that's not actually a threat of murder.

I was just going to say the same. Many a time I've been chatting away and said, 'I'll bloomin kill you if you repeat that' It's not a threat, it's a light hearted comment.

No different to some comments on this very forum in reply to news stories, how many times do we hear 'leave me in a room with them, they won't walk again'. Yet the same people are still posting, so their threat goes un-noticed and even The Echo don't remove them. Yet it is a direct threat!

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Many people say things on Facebook which they don't mean, lots of illegal items get posted daily. Here is an example, which made me giggle!
Some may consider this illegal? It's not my prayer but one that was just posted to me!........
Our Father, who are in prison
Mother knows not his name.
Thy Chavdom come, thy shoplifting be done, in JJB sports as it is in Poundland.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our ASBO's as we happy slap those who give evidence against us.
And lead us not into employment
But deliver us free housing
For thine is the chavdom
The Burberry and the Blackberry
For ever and ever
init[/p][/quote]Many people say things in real life they don't mean. Who hasn't, at some point, said something along the lines of "I could kill him"? But we all know that's not actually a threat of murder.[/p][/quote]I was just going to say the same. Many a time I've been chatting away and said, 'I'll bloomin kill you if you repeat that' It's not a threat, it's a light hearted comment.
No different to some comments on this very forum in reply to news stories, how many times do we hear 'leave me in a room with them, they won't walk again'. Yet the same people are still posting, so their threat goes un-noticed and even The Echo don't remove them. Yet it is a direct threat!IronLady2010

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says &quot;For you, no charge!"

I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.

No sense of humour some people!

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.[/p][/quote]A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"[/p][/quote]I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.[/p][/quote]No sense of humour some people!OSPREYSAINT

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says &quot;For you, no charge!"

I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.

No sense of humour some people!

Not to mention barkeepers who wouldn't know a neutron when they saw one.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.[/p][/quote]A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"[/p][/quote]I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.[/p][/quote]No sense of humour some people![/p][/quote]Not to mention barkeepers who wouldn't know a neutron when they saw one.OSPREYSAINT

jazzi wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x

Sounds to me like you're already on something!

You sir yet again use bully boy tactics if u don't agree with someone. I do not need your opinion, I WAS GIVING MINE U PLANK.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you're already on something![/p][/quote]You sir yet again use bully boy tactics if u don't agree with someone. I do not need your opinion, I WAS GIVING MINE U PLANK.jazzi

You see my point, though. Except in a few minority cases, perhaps, there will always be someone who will be offended by something. I don't see this as a bad thing. Even if I did, I certainly don't think being offensive should be illegal. That way lies madness.

[quote]OSPREYSAINT wrote:
No sense of humour some people![/quote]
True!
You see my point, though. Except in a few minority cases, perhaps, there will always be someone who will be offended by something. I don't see this as a bad thing. Even if I did, I certainly don't think being offensive should be illegal. That way lies madness.Georgem

jazzi wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x

Sounds to me like you're already on something!

You sir yet again use bully boy tactics if u don't agree with someone. I do not need your opinion, I WAS GIVING MINE U PLANK.

I'd be interested in your definition of "bully boy tactics" in relationship to my comment!

[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x[/p][/quote]Sounds to me like you're already on something![/p][/quote]You sir yet again use bully boy tactics if u don't agree with someone. I do not need your opinion, I WAS GIVING MINE U PLANK.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested in your definition of "bully boy tactics" in relationship to my comment!George4th

I have a son of this age who I can imagine writing something similar on Facebook. He has no convictions, he has never been arrested but lacks common sense and is guilty of being a prat at times. The man who was convicted sounds very much like him. Three years in prison does feel excessive.

I wonder sometimes if people like him would maybe benefit by a shorter time in prison. Two or three nights in a cell feeling scared all the time would make you leave appreciating freedom and never wanting to return. Three years, I'm afraid will turn you into a different person and probably a worse one.

Dont get me wrong I believe he should be punished but it should be proportionate to the crime and proportionate to other sentences being given out at this moment in time to far more serious offences and where people were actually hurt.

I hope there is an appeal and the sentence is reduced or changed.

I have a son of this age who I can imagine writing something similar on Facebook. He has no convictions, he has never been arrested but lacks common sense and is guilty of being a prat at times. The man who was convicted sounds very much like him. Three years in prison does feel excessive.
I wonder sometimes if people like him would maybe benefit by a shorter time in prison. Two or three nights in a cell feeling scared all the time would make you leave appreciating freedom and never wanting to return. Three years, I'm afraid will turn you into a different person and probably a worse one.
Dont get me wrong I believe he should be punished but it should be proportionate to the crime and proportionate to other sentences being given out at this moment in time to far more serious offences and where people were actually hurt.
I hope there is an appeal and the sentence is reduced or changed.Sure

Sure wrote:
I have a son of this age who I can imagine writing something similar on Facebook. He has no convictions, he has never been arrested but lacks common sense and is guilty of being a prat at times. The man who was convicted sounds very much like him. Three years in prison does feel excessive.

I wonder sometimes if people like him would maybe benefit by a shorter time in prison. Two or three nights in a cell feeling scared all the time would make you leave appreciating freedom and never wanting to return. Three years, I'm afraid will turn you into a different person and probably a worse one.

Dont get me wrong I believe he should be punished but it should be proportionate to the crime and proportionate to other sentences being given out at this moment in time to far more serious offences and where people were actually hurt.

I hope there is an appeal and the sentence is reduced or changed.

this might be a good ida, but for the fact in prison you become at major risk of harm in many ways drugs, bullies, isolation etc.

Prisons are not the place for anyones son even to teach them a lesson

[quote][p][bold]Sure[/bold] wrote:
I have a son of this age who I can imagine writing something similar on Facebook. He has no convictions, he has never been arrested but lacks common sense and is guilty of being a prat at times. The man who was convicted sounds very much like him. Three years in prison does feel excessive.
I wonder sometimes if people like him would maybe benefit by a shorter time in prison. Two or three nights in a cell feeling scared all the time would make you leave appreciating freedom and never wanting to return. Three years, I'm afraid will turn you into a different person and probably a worse one.
Dont get me wrong I believe he should be punished but it should be proportionate to the crime and proportionate to other sentences being given out at this moment in time to far more serious offences and where people were actually hurt.
I hope there is an appeal and the sentence is reduced or changed.[/p][/quote]this might be a good ida, but for the fact in prison you become at major risk of harm in many ways drugs, bullies, isolation etc.
Prisons are not the place for anyones son even to teach them a lessonsimaster

As a taxpayer I object to paying this lads food and board for the 18 months he will actually serve.

As a citizen I object to the overweening legal system we seem to have acquired where even thought and comment seem to be imprisonable offences

As a human being I object to this on the basis it will ruin his life, who will employ him once he is out with a criminal conviction.

This whole thing makes me ashamed to be British.

As a taxpayer I object to paying this lads food and board for the 18 months he will actually serve.
As a citizen I object to the overweening legal system we seem to have acquired where even thought and comment seem to be imprisonable offences
As a human being I object to this on the basis it will ruin his life, who will employ him once he is out with a criminal conviction.
This whole thing makes me ashamed to be British.SotonGreen

SotonGreen wrote:
As a taxpayer I object to paying this lads food and board for the 18 months he will actually serve.

As a citizen I object to the overweening legal system we seem to have acquired where even thought and comment seem to be imprisonable offences

As a human being I object to this on the basis it will ruin his life, who will employ him once he is out with a criminal conviction.

This whole thing makes me ashamed to be British.

As a Tax payer, I'm happy to pay his food and also pay him compensation for each day he spends inside.

I do agree, I'm ashamed of this outcome and the system!

[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote:
As a taxpayer I object to paying this lads food and board for the 18 months he will actually serve.
As a citizen I object to the overweening legal system we seem to have acquired where even thought and comment seem to be imprisonable offences
As a human being I object to this on the basis it will ruin his life, who will employ him once he is out with a criminal conviction.
This whole thing makes me ashamed to be British.[/p][/quote]As a Tax payer, I'm happy to pay his food and also pay him compensation for each day he spends inside.
I do agree, I'm ashamed of this outcome and the system!IronLady2010

If he has posted 'let's burn buildings and kill the fuzz' then I could understand but come on...

Careful what you say, I'm not sure you are allowed to use quote marks to distance yourself from the comment...I think you may need need to prefix what you say with #joke...oh #joke BTW

[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote:
Yep, stupid comment to post but 3 years!?
If he has posted 'let's burn buildings and kill the fuzz' then I could understand but come on...[/p][/quote]Careful what you say, I'm not sure you are allowed to use quote marks to distance yourself from the comment...I think you may need need to prefix what you say with #joke...oh #joke BTWJesus_02

londonnew wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?

no he would need to use #joke

[quote][p][bold]londonnew[/bold] wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?[/p][/quote]no he would need to use #jokeJesus_02

What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.Sir Ad E Noid

londonnew wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?

It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.

A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.

[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]londonnew[/bold] wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?[/p][/quote]no he would need to use #joke[/p][/quote]Why would he? If his friends know what he's like, they'll guess he's joking.
This is facebook, where you have a circle of friends whom you know?
It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.
A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.IronLady2010

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?

[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?IronLady2010

jazzi wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x

what he said

[quote][p][bold]jazzi[/bold] wrote:
This is not a sentence for one man, it is for all men in future. So for example when we protest about the poisons they put in the water , no one will speak up. This is a warning to all that loose lips sink ships. This is not freedom of speech , it is control of the masses. like the new back to work programs for people signed off sick or disabled. Doctors opinions and medical histories are just going to magically disappear. On heavy medication and sent back to work or starve, then drugged up JIMMY crashes and maims someone, yeah great idea, NEW WORLD ORDER my ARMPITS x[/p][/quote]what he saidJesus_02

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!Chunshine

An' everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
An' nobody wants
To go to jail!

White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own

-- Best arrest the Clash then.....#joke #i'm not a free man

An' everybody's doing
Just what they're told to
An' nobody wants
To go to jail!
White riot - I wanna riot
White riot - a riot of my own
-- Best arrest the Clash then.....#joke #i'm not a free manJesus_02

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your &quot;Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

You are 100% correct.

I often say I'm going to kill the neighbours cat if it sh**s in my garden again, but I never would. I'd never hurt an animal, but we suggest such things in an innocent way, maybe I should be locked up to, I'm only human!

It's just one of those pointless comments we all make.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power![/p][/quote]You are 100% correct.
I often say I'm going to kill the neighbours cat if it sh**s in my garden again, but I never would. I'd never hurt an animal, but we suggest such things in an innocent way, maybe I should be locked up to, I'm only human!
It's just one of those pointless comments we all make.IronLady2010

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your &quot;Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

I totally agree with you. A very level headed view. It's a shame the judge didn't have the same.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power![/p][/quote]I totally agree with you. A very level headed view. It's a shame the judge didn't have the same.Sure

londonnew wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?

It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.

A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.

Steady there...I was actually making a joke..this could end up very confusing if we continue to reply to each other so please read my other post and accept my most sincere apologies for any misunderstanding...#
joke..sh!t i didn't really mean it that time..#sincere

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]londonnew[/bold] wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?[/p][/quote]no he would need to use #joke[/p][/quote]Why would he? If his friends know what he's like, they'll guess he's joking.
This is facebook, where you have a circle of friends whom you know?
It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.
A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.[/p][/quote]Steady there...I was actually making a joke..this could end up very confusing if we continue to reply to each other so please read my other post and accept my most sincere apologies for any misunderstanding...#
joke..sh!t i didn't really mean it that time..#sincereJesus_02

londonnew wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?

It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.

A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.

Steady there...I was actually making a joke..this could end up very confusing if we continue to reply to each other so please read my other post and accept my most sincere apologies for any misunderstanding...#

joke..sh!t i didn't really mean it that time..#sincere

I think the use of # comes from twitter, which I don't get lol.

I'm a bit too old for all this modern text speak stuff.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends as I live miles away from my home town, I don't use text talk, just a normal conversation is good for me.

Can't be doing with #lovelife #bad day etc. Just say it as it is. it's to do with trending or something, the more people who post a # status sets a trend?

Weird stuff, why would you want to start a trend with people you don't know, this is socialising with people you don't even know!

[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]londonnew[/bold] wrote:
I’ve heard many jokes that aren’t funny but they amuse some people, a judge’s role is not decide what is funny or not. If the lad had added a smiley face at the end of his posts, would he now be a free man?[/p][/quote]no he would need to use #joke[/p][/quote]Why would he? If his friends know what he's like, they'll guess he's joking.
This is facebook, where you have a circle of friends whom you know?
It's not like he created a facebook 'group' purely to incite a riot, he posted among his personal friends.
A Facebook group is different to a personal profile.[/p][/quote]Steady there...I was actually making a joke..this could end up very confusing if we continue to reply to each other so please read my other post and accept my most sincere apologies for any misunderstanding...#
joke..sh!t i didn't really mean it that time..#sincere[/p][/quote]I think the use of # comes from twitter, which I don't get lol.
I'm a bit too old for all this modern text speak stuff.
I use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends as I live miles away from my home town, I don't use text talk, just a normal conversation is good for me.
Can't be doing with #lovelife #bad day etc. Just say it as it is. it's to do with trending or something, the more people who post a # status sets a trend?
Weird stuff, why would you want to start a trend with people you don't know, this is socialising with people you don't even know!IronLady2010

sarfhamton wrote:
This guys life is going to be ruined because of comments no worse than some of the numbskull posters on here.

What a waste.

Tried to find the like button, then realised this isn't facebook. x

[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote:
This guys life is going to be ruined because of comments no worse than some of the numbskull posters on here.
What a waste.[/p][/quote]Tried to find the like button, then realised this isn't facebook. xIronLady2010

Waiting wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.

@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you!

[quote][p][bold]Waiting[/bold] wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.[/p][/quote]@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you!Georgem

ilovelamp wrote:
I doubt mitchell is as nice guy you cant write these things and put it down as just a poor joke. still doesnt deserve 3 years a month maybe but this is crazy

He doesn't deserve any sentence. It's a farce that this was considered criminal at all.

[quote][p][bold]ilovelamp[/bold] wrote:
I doubt mitchell is as nice guy you cant write these things and put it down as just a poor joke. still doesnt deserve 3 years a month maybe but this is crazy[/p][/quote]He doesn't deserve any sentence. It's a farce that this was considered criminal at all.Georgem

Waiting wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.

@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you!

Proves my point though doesn't it, thre are some that don't deserve the right to freedom of speech because they abuse it. A bit sad but quite amusing!

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Waiting[/bold] wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.[/p][/quote]@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you![/p][/quote]Proves my point though doesn't it, thre are some that don't deserve the right to freedom of speech because they abuse it. A bit sad but quite amusing!OSPREYSAINT

IronLady2010 wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.

OK then who do you make an example of?

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.[/p][/quote]OK then who do you make an example of?OSPREYSAINT

ilovelamp wrote:
I doubt mitchell is as nice guy you cant write these things and put it down as just a poor joke. still doesnt deserve 3 years a month maybe but this is crazy

He doesn't deserve any sentence. It's a farce that this was considered criminal at all.

We know that, but it is out of our hands, hope he gets a chance to appeal.

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ilovelamp[/bold] wrote:
I doubt mitchell is as nice guy you cant write these things and put it down as just a poor joke. still doesnt deserve 3 years a month maybe but this is crazy[/p][/quote]He doesn't deserve any sentence. It's a farce that this was considered criminal at all.[/p][/quote]We know that, but it is out of our hands, hope he gets a chance to appeal.OSPREYSAINT

Waiting wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.

Takes one to find one.

[quote][p][bold]Waiting[/bold] wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.[/p][/quote]Takes one to find one.OSPREYSAINT

IronLady2010 wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.

OK then who do you make an example of?

Is making an example of someone fair punishment.

A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.

I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.[/p][/quote]OK then who do you make an example of?[/p][/quote]Is making an example of someone fair punishment.
A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.
I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.IronLady2010

IronLady2010 wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.

OK then who do you make an example of?

Is making an example of someone fair punishment.

A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.

I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.

Setting an example to who?

The facts say it all, more than 50% of crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

So all these examples that are being set are reaching who? Not the right people that's for sure!

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.[/p][/quote]OK then who do you make an example of?[/p][/quote]Is making an example of someone fair punishment.
A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.
I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.[/p][/quote]Setting an example to who?
The facts say it all, more than 50% of crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
So all these examples that are being set are reaching who? Not the right people that's for sure!Chunshine

IronLady2010 wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.

OK then who do you make an example of?

Is making an example of someone fair punishment.

A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.

I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.

One thing this case proves, is that we ALL need to watch what we type on the internet. What we feel is innocent and an opinion WILL be used against us when required.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
Wave 105 have suggested the judge stated that he must be made an example of. That is not justice, you cannot single out one person to set an example.[/p][/quote]OK then who do you make an example of?[/p][/quote]Is making an example of someone fair punishment.
A crime is a crime, to say I'm giving you 3 years to set an example, but I could have given you a suspended sentence, but chose not to is not a fair sentence.
I'm sure the example was set many decades ago, but has just been bought up again.[/p][/quote]One thing this case proves, is that we ALL need to watch what we type on the internet. What we feel is innocent and an opinion WILL be used against us when required.IronLady2010

I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.Adi Russ

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......IronLady2010

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Did the Judge make any suggestions whilst summarising?

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Did the Judge make any suggestions whilst summarising?IronLady2010

For making a stupid comment, this lad is probably going to get his head kicked in in jail, when they should be putting more effort into stopping these sex freaks that keep attacking in and near...... I won't mention the particular area that are blatantly no good freaks from........ not here and I bet they don't get 3 years or deported? Sorry, getting carried away ranting here... Besides, Maybe they should give our youths something to do in society rather than spending all their time on Facebook, this young lad had a job and a future he didn't appear to be the usual 'bum' type

For making a stupid comment, this lad is probably going to get his head kicked in in jail, when they should be putting more effort into stopping these sex freaks that keep attacking in and near...... I won't mention the particular area that are blatantly no good freaks from........ not here and I bet they don't get 3 years or deported? Sorry, getting carried away ranting here... Besides, Maybe they should give our youths something to do in society rather than spending all their time on Facebook, this young lad had a job and a future he didn't appear to be the usual 'bum' typeEnglish not British

English not British wrote:
For making a stupid comment, this lad is probably going to get his head kicked in in jail, when they should be putting more effort into stopping these sex freaks that keep attacking in and near...... I won't mention the particular area that are blatantly no good freaks from........ not here and I bet they don't get 3 years or deported? Sorry, getting carried away ranting here... Besides, Maybe they should give our youths something to do in society rather than spending all their time on Facebook, this young lad had a job and a future he didn't appear to be the usual 'bum' type

Why will he get his head kicked in? What sex freaks? Give youths something to do in society?

Are you posting on the same article?

[quote][p][bold]English not British[/bold] wrote:
For making a stupid comment, this lad is probably going to get his head kicked in in jail, when they should be putting more effort into stopping these sex freaks that keep attacking in and near...... I won't mention the particular area that are blatantly no good freaks from........ not here and I bet they don't get 3 years or deported? Sorry, getting carried away ranting here... Besides, Maybe they should give our youths something to do in society rather than spending all their time on Facebook, this young lad had a job and a future he didn't appear to be the usual 'bum' type[/p][/quote]Why will he get his head kicked in? What sex freaks? Give youths something to do in society?
Are you posting on the same article?IronLady2010

Waiting wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.

@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you!

Proves my point though doesn't it, thre are some that don't deserve the right to freedom of speech because they abuse it. A bit sad but quite amusing!

I disagree that they don't deserve that right. But I fully support your right to say so!

[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Waiting[/bold] wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.[/p][/quote]@OSPREYSAINT See? This guy was offended by that joke. Told you![/p][/quote]Proves my point though doesn't it, thre are some that don't deserve the right to freedom of speech because they abuse it. A bit sad but quite amusing![/p][/quote]I disagree that they don't deserve that right. But I fully support your right to say so!Georgem

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.Georgem

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.

Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.

The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.[/p][/quote]Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.
The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.Chunshine

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.

Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.

The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.

I'd like to think you're wrong...............
.....

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.[/p][/quote]Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.
The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.[/p][/quote]I'd like to think you're wrong...............
.....IronLady2010

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.

Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.

The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.

You're spot on. He's a sacrifice. The public demanded that something be done about the riots, and the court threw this guy to the crowd. Disgusting. Just like the idiot that tweeted racist comments about Muamba. The villagers waved their pitchforks, and the courts threw his body to them. And we fall for it, every time.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.[/p][/quote]Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.
The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.[/p][/quote]You're spot on. He's a sacrifice. The public demanded that something be done about the riots, and the court threw this guy to the crowd. Disgusting. Just like the idiot that tweeted racist comments about Muamba. The villagers waved their pitchforks, and the courts threw his body to them. And we fall for it, every time.Georgem

Adi Russ wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.

Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.

Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?

Or was the Jury led.......

Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.

Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.

The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.

I'd like to think you're wrong...............

.....

The hype surrounding all of the riots and then the PM bleating on in public that "we will find you and you will be punished" gave way to an overzealous desire to make arrests and carry out prosecutions regardless. The public, and after all that is what a jury is made up of, were all too easily sucked into this.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Adi Russ[/bold] wrote:
I am sure that if it was Mitchells intention to incite a riot , then he would have made a better attempt than 3 comments on a social network site. Surely he would have sent numerous E-Mails to like minded people and arranged a meeting place etc. Three years in prison for three foolish statements seems very harsh to me. A young, hard working lads life, probably ruined , just to set an example.[/p][/quote]Why did the Jury find him guilty? He was charged with incitement to cause violence and was found guilty.
Was the Jury presented with different evidence than has been made public?
Or was the Jury led.......[/p][/quote]Juries are always led. It's a myth that they decide whether someone is guilty or innocent, and that's that. They're usually directed by the court of a number of ways they can find a defendant. They may be told they have to find him guilty of either this charge, or this other, lesser charge. Or any other number of combinations. They're not given free rein to decide what to do.[/p][/quote]Like I said earlier, this guy was already found guilty before he sat before his peers.
The Government's pathetic attempts to look like they are actually doing something about what happened last year has seen to that.[/p][/quote]I'd like to think you're wrong...............
.....[/p][/quote]The hype surrounding all of the riots and then the PM bleating on in public that "we will find you and you will be punished" gave way to an overzealous desire to make arrests and carry out prosecutions regardless. The public, and after all that is what a jury is made up of, were all too easily sucked into this.Chunshine

TheJoiners wrote:
Looks like you have a lot of support fella. Good luck with your appeal. British justice should hang its head in shame AGAIN

Agree, loads of support, is there some sort of online petition we can all join to help his appeal?

[quote][p][bold]TheJoiners[/bold] wrote:
Looks like you have a lot of support fella. Good luck with your appeal. British justice should hang its head in shame AGAIN[/p][/quote]Agree, loads of support, is there some sort of online petition we can all join to help his appeal?rabbitlady

"f*** them. Hardly can do f*** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those c***s as well."
This was his 3rd post after he was warned twice by friends. Not a funny joke really. But did you hear the one about the racist mechanic who go 3 years….
I for one am glad this racist is off the streets for 3 years.

"f*** them. Hardly can do f*** all if we get loads together and have a right go. And why we are at it - the muslim revolt: give it to those c***s as well."
This was his 3rd post after he was warned twice by friends. Not a funny joke really. But did you hear the one about the racist mechanic who go 3 years….
I for one am glad this racist is off the streets for 3 years.Beera Ji

A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????

Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous!

So why don't you go to the thick end of the wedge with your complaint then, your sense of justice is being distorted isn't it?

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
3 reports from the Echo pages in the last week:
A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????
Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous![/p][/quote]So why don't you go to the thick end of the wedge with your complaint then, your sense of justice is being distorted isn't it?lowe esteem

I've known Mitch for years and I think it's disgusting to read people are glad of his sentence. He is by no means a criminal, and is known among his friends and the local community as being lively, fun loving and full of banter. Seeing that it was his "friends" that he thought would be reading his statement and it is no different to the banter flying around the pubs at the time ANYWHERE in the country, I find it hard to believe that he could be perceived as an antagonist and that it could possibly reach this stage of being blown out of proportion. If they need a deterrent that is completely understandable, but you cannot create an example to criminals by convicting someone who is not guilty. There are people out there who clearly were involved in the riots and it would surely be more appropriate to punish them. Although Mitch's comments may seem distasteful to some, they were definitely meant in jest. Saying that I know that my Grandma and the majority of the elderly population are truly racist, if he is a threat for having a sense of humour, maybe the aged in all their gummy glory should be locked up with him? Mitch has a good career and is a promising football player, I have no doubt that this over bearing, unjust conviction that he has been given will create a new person hardened to the world with a chip on his shoulder. Congratulations England, you've ruined another life.

I've known Mitch for years and I think it's disgusting to read people are glad of his sentence. He is by no means a criminal, and is known among his friends and the local community as being lively, fun loving and full of banter. Seeing that it was his "friends" that he thought would be reading his statement and it is no different to the banter flying around the pubs at the time ANYWHERE in the country, I find it hard to believe that he could be perceived as an antagonist and that it could possibly reach this stage of being blown out of proportion. If they need a deterrent that is completely understandable, but you cannot create an example to criminals by convicting someone who is not guilty. There are people out there who clearly were involved in the riots and it would surely be more appropriate to punish them. Although Mitch's comments may seem distasteful to some, they were definitely meant in jest. Saying that I know that my Grandma and the majority of the elderly population are truly racist, if he is a threat for having a sense of humour, maybe the aged in all their gummy glory should be locked up with him? Mitch has a good career and is a promising football player, I have no doubt that this over bearing, unjust conviction that he has been given will create a new person hardened to the world with a chip on his shoulder. Congratulations England, you've ruined another life.Farmy2012

A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????

Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous!

So why don't you go to the thick end of the wedge with your complaint then, your sense of justice is being distorted isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by my sense of justice is being distorted, could you expand on that comment?

[quote][p][bold]lowe esteem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
3 reports from the Echo pages in the last week:
A MAN who threw a glass after trouble flared in a pub told a court: “I’m no angel when I have had a drink.” ??????
A TEENAGER who punched a stranger on a Southampton street, breaking his right eye socket, ??????
A HAMPSHIRE man who downloaded more than 700 indecent images of children was ?????
The Dad who ran a brothel above a bank (2 borthels amongst other crimes) ????
Fill in the question marks as to what sentences they received and then look at this guy's 3 year sentence, ridiculous![/p][/quote]So why don't you go to the thick end of the wedge with your complaint then, your sense of justice is being distorted isn't it?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what you mean by my sense of justice is being distorted, could you expand on that comment?Chunshine

The Salv wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)

We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.

We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.

How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:

**** ****

Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.

Part 4A of Public Order Act:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.

Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.

You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?

Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.

I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.

Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.

A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says &quot;For you, no charge!"

I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.

as a minority, us neutrons are very misunderstood and i take exception to being used as an example of this kind of humour, most of you have no idea of the lives we have to lead

seriously though read up on the TOLPUDDLE MARTYRS

[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
This is extremely decision to make and will now open up a whole new can of worms on free speech. Obviously making an example of this young man but I think this is a terrible decision. There are far worse atrocities going on out there unpunished or underpunished. Big Brother is watching you (.)(.)[/p][/quote]We don't have freedom of speech in this country. The very existence of a hate-speech law shows that.[/p][/quote]We do have freedom of speech, you are on here excercising it are you not. It is abuse of that Freedom that has to be outlawed, however I know it is difficult to know where to draw the line. There is a thin line between having a laugh and being deadly serious, this lad claims it was just a bad joke, but failed to realise that others will have treated it seriously and may well have reacted in the wrong manner. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but then again I haven't seen any of the evidence, those more qualified to judge have, and have given their verdict.[/p][/quote]How am I exercising freedom of speech? I'm most certainly not exercising it here. Watch this:
**** ****
Did you see what I wrote? Nope, you didn't. Poor example. Anyway, freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody can say anything, anywhere, and have nobody stop them. It means the state won't prevent you from saying it, or take measures to prevent you from saying it. We quite clearly don't have it, because, as in this story, the state has imprisoned someone for something he said. Quite simple, really.
Section 18 of the Public Order Act:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
You're guilty of an offence, if you say certain things. That is quite specifically NOT freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech isn't an on/off switch. We're free to say most things, but there are restrictions. Further, and more worryingly, those restrictions are vaguely worded, and seem to fluctuate according to public outcry.
Part 4A of Public Order Act:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
That states you are committing an offence if you say anything that can be construed as offensive, at all. Calling someone a nasty name is a criminal offence.
Tell me again the bit about freedom of speech.[/p][/quote]You are trying say that is OK to be offensive? Why?[/p][/quote]Well, without getting into the argument that 'offensive' is not an absolute term, for starters, according to you, we have freedom of speech in this country. That means for everyone. Not just people being nice and polite to each other.
I don't think I really need to explain why it's ok to be offensive.
Quick. Tell me a joke that isn't in any way offensive.[/p][/quote]A neutron walks into a bar. The barkeeper says "For you, no charge!"[/p][/quote]I guarantee you there will be a physicist somewhere who would be offended by making light of his subject in this manner.[/p][/quote]as a minority, us neutrons are very misunderstood and i take exception to being used as an example of this kind of humour, most of you have no idea of the lives we have to lead
seriously though read up on the TOLPUDDLE MARTYRScirca 66 saint

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?

Stupid comment. Read what you have posted, doesn't make sense.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?[/p][/quote]Stupid comment. Read what you have posted, doesn't make sense.Sir Ad E Noid

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?

Stupid comment. Read what you have posted, doesn't make sense.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]Taken up what offer? I see nothing to suggest he arranged a riot?[/p][/quote]Stupid comment. Read what you have posted, doesn't make sense.Sir Ad E Noid

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your &quot;Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

A Liberal Wet, you are pathetic. You are every thing this country does not need. Thank god you are a nobody.

[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power![/p][/quote]A Liberal Wet, you are pathetic. You are every thing this country does not need. Thank god you are a nobody.Sir Ad E Noid

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your &quot;Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

You are 100% correct.

I often say I'm going to kill the neighbours cat if it sh**s in my garden again, but I never would. I'd never hurt an animal, but we suggest such things in an innocent way, maybe I should be locked up to, I'm only human!

It's just one of those pointless comments we all make.

Another load of garbage from the Lady of Iron. Thank God you are also a nobody. Unfortunately you are also in the band of Liberal Wets who are in the ascendancy. I will say it again, three years, priceless. The food is on me and the rest of your life is on you.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power![/p][/quote]You are 100% correct.
I often say I'm going to kill the neighbours cat if it sh**s in my garden again, but I never would. I'd never hurt an animal, but we suggest such things in an innocent way, maybe I should be locked up to, I'm only human!
It's just one of those pointless comments we all make.[/p][/quote]Another load of garbage from the Lady of Iron. Thank God you are also a nobody. Unfortunately you are also in the band of Liberal Wets who are in the ascendancy. I will say it again, three years, priceless. The food is on me and the rest of your life is on you.Sir Ad E Noid

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.

If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?

You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.

The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.

Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.

Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your &quot;Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power!

A Liberal Wet, you are pathetic. You are every thing this country does not need. Thank god you are a nobody.

I am far from liberal, trust me on that! And as for being a nobody, we are ALL nobodies in this country, the difference is I do not try and make out like I am somebody.

As I said before, you and people like you are more of a danger to the public than this guy ever was or will be.

If you seriously believe this guy deserves 3 years and a ruined life for just behaving like a complete idiot and addressing his circle of friends, not believing that anybody else would see, then I am glad I do not have to be around you. It is the likes of you that cause most of the resentment and anger in this country in the first place.

You are a very antagonistic person who is not content with voicing an opinion and having an open discussion about it. You have to resort to the tactics of a bully. If anyone has shown they are capable of inciting something it is surely you. It is you who has shown yourself to be the pathetic one.

This is the very last time I am going to entertain responding to your drivel, I have no interest in engaging with someone who has less a clue of real life than the person who we were originally talking about. Have a nice life in your "I'm a somebody" little world.

[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chunshine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote:
What a result. If a group had taken up his offer and torched a famous place or landmark, the Liberal wets on here wouldn't be grizzling so loud. We escaped pretty much all of the carnage of last summer, no thanks to this idiot. Enjoy your chokey, the foods on me.[/p][/quote]If a group had done that then yes I would be the first to say lock him up! But they didn't did they?
You can't hang somebody because they might have murdered somebody or thought about it or told somebody they wanted to do it! So his sentence should be proportionate to the actual crime.
The truth is he is being made an example of for the sake of this pathetic Government, trying to get a message across to real criminals, well they messed it up again then didn't they? He's not a real criminal and this has just made the Government look even more pathetic than they already are.
Tackle crime properly, firstly by NOT cutting the resources the police need like manpower! Save a bit of money by not trying ridiculous cases like this one in the first place.
Yes this guy is an idiot for what he's done but what does that make you? With your "Got my pitch fork, let's kill the monster" outlook on things, you and people like you are far more dangerous to innocent people in our society than this guy ever would have been, thank goodness you are not in a position of power![/p][/quote]A Liberal Wet, you are pathetic. You are every thing this country does not need. Thank god you are a nobody.[/p][/quote]I am far from liberal, trust me on that! And as for being a nobody, we are ALL nobodies in this country, the difference is I do not try and make out like I am somebody.
As I said before, you and people like you are more of a danger to the public than this guy ever was or will be.
If you seriously believe this guy deserves 3 years and a ruined life for just behaving like a complete idiot and addressing his circle of friends, not believing that anybody else would see, then I am glad I do not have to be around you. It is the likes of you that cause most of the resentment and anger in this country in the first place.
You are a very antagonistic person who is not content with voicing an opinion and having an open discussion about it. You have to resort to the tactics of a bully. If anyone has shown they are capable of inciting something it is surely you. It is you who has shown yourself to be the pathetic one.
This is the very last time I am going to entertain responding to your drivel, I have no interest in engaging with someone who has less a clue of real life than the person who we were originally talking about. Have a nice life in your "I'm a somebody" little world.Chunshine

Waiting wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.

I missed a trick here, only a rotten bar steward would come up with a comment like that!

[quote][p][bold]Waiting[/bold] wrote:
OSPREYSAINT
The barkeeper might not know a neutron, but he would sure as eggs know an ars**ole when he saw one, guess you would be leaving pretty quickly.[/p][/quote]I missed a trick here, only a rotten bar steward would come up with a comment like that!OSPREYSAINT

"as a minority, us neutrons are very misunderstood and i take exception to being used as an example of this kind of humour, most of you have no idea of the lives we have to lead"

I have found the protons are very positive about all this. Whereas the very negative electrons like many in their line of work take up a superposition.
Any self respecting photon would be out of here at light speed.

"as a minority, us neutrons are very misunderstood and i take exception to being used as an example of this kind of humour, most of you have no idea of the lives we have to lead"
I have found the protons are very positive about all this. Whereas the very negative electrons like many in their line of work take up a superposition.
Any self respecting photon would be out of here at light speed.cliffwalker

This is a case of the British State reacting to the events of the Arab Spring, they know that when people wake up to the fact we also live under a DICTATORSHIP that social media will be our method of organising resistance. We have no REAL rights, freedoms or liberties except the ones that are in alignment with our ruling Capitalist class and their continuing right to guarantee their own ill gotten gains,

This is a case of the British State reacting to the events of the Arab Spring, they know that when people wake up to the fact we also live under a DICTATORSHIP that social media will be our method of organising resistance. We have no REAL rights, freedoms or liberties except the ones that are in alignment with our ruling Capitalist class and their continuing right to guarantee their own ill gotten gains,peenut81

peenut81 wrote:
This is a case of the British State reacting to the events of the Arab Spring, they know that when people wake up to the fact we also live under a DICTATORSHIP that social media will be our method of organising resistance. We have no REAL rights, freedoms or liberties except the ones that are in alignment with our ruling Capitalist class and their continuing right to guarantee their own ill gotten gains,

You have the right to emigrate, don't let me stop you.

[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote:
This is a case of the British State reacting to the events of the Arab Spring, they know that when people wake up to the fact we also live under a DICTATORSHIP that social media will be our method of organising resistance. We have no REAL rights, freedoms or liberties except the ones that are in alignment with our ruling Capitalist class and their continuing right to guarantee their own ill gotten gains,[/p][/quote]You have the right to emigrate, don't let me stop you.OSPREYSAINT

We live increasingly in a police state. Just witness this case, the ongoing attempts to leglislate to allow arbitary wiretapping of email, skype, website browsing etc and the heavy handed attempt to curtail the festivities on the common over the jubilee period. We increasingly are subject to a out of control police service acting as both judge and jury operating without the consent of the community.

We live increasingly in a police state. Just witness this case, the ongoing attempts to leglislate to allow arbitary wiretapping of email, skype, website browsing etc and the heavy handed attempt to curtail the festivities on the common over the jubilee period. We increasingly are subject to a out of control police service acting as both judge and jury operating without the consent of the community.SotonGreen

This young mans offence was just stupidity, so was the judge sentence of 3 years. I was organising a demo during David Camerons visit to Romsey at the last election on twitter, it took all of forty minutes for special branch to phone me on my home phone.Police state? we already have it.

This young mans offence was just stupidity, so was the judge sentence of 3 years. I was organising a demo during David Camerons visit to Romsey at the last election on twitter, it took all of forty minutes for special branch to phone me on my home phone.Police state? we already have it.peter sowerby

I have known Mitch for over 2 years. This sentence is completely disproportional. I consider him to be a decent bloke. At worse, possible a little naive and immature. Does that really deserve 3 years? A punishment yes......but 3 years?
Anyone who believes this sentence is "just", should meet a few proper criminals, who seem to get less.

[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote:
Good. Idiot.[/p][/quote]I have known Mitch for over 2 years. This sentence is completely disproportional. I consider him to be a decent bloke. At worse, possible a little naive and immature. Does that really deserve 3 years? A punishment yes......but 3 years?
Anyone who believes this sentence is "just", should meet a few proper criminals, who seem to get less.Andyvan